Just can't resist...this time on media bias

[SR540Beaver 116]

Eisley,

 

O'Reilly is the king followed closely by Hannity. Begala and Carville are equal to Novak and Carlson in hypocrisy and shrillness. As O'Reilly says, "we report, you decide". I'll decide when I get information, not opinion. I have a mind of my own and I don't need someone else telling me what to think. I watch MSNBC, FOX and CNN everynight.....mostly for entertainment. I long for the good old days when CNN just reported the news instead of all of the fist fight counterpoint shows.

[frankj 10]

In my view, a "lousy" editorial page would be one that is poorly put together, technically, and maybe with low-talent writers. The Wall St Journal editorial page is anything but that.

 

The point of Eisely's inital post was Clark compared Jesus Christ to a terrorist in front of a bunch of reports at a press club ... and hardly anyone mentioned it.

 

You ask about context, etc., read Eisely's post. It is a verbatim copy of the piece that appeared in the Art (and Leisure) section of the WSJ and you can answer your own questions. You don't think there is bias in the media? Ask yourself how often the word conservative is prefaced with the term "right-wing" in ordinary everyday news reporting and then ask yourself how often these same news sources preface the term liberal with "left-wing".

 

 

[firstpusk 10]

frankj,

 

Then the Journal's Art section is infected with the same lousy standards ast the editorial page. I don't give a rip if a reporter, columnist or editor is liberal or conservative. What I do expect is some standard of professionalism. Comparing the two situations is tenuous at best. Falwell was on a highly rated national news magazine for a major network in prime time. Clark was making an appearance that was not reaching anywhere near that audience. Also, it appears he was addressing Falwell's remark. The nicest thing one could say about it is that it was lazy journalism, i.e., some flack brings you the story and you print it without checking facts.

 

Yes, the Journal can generally spell correctly on the editorial page and I guess their Arts section. In that way, the paper is not lousy. But in terms of good reporting and writing, giving the reader what they need to make up their own mind, they are lousy in this case.

 

If you and eisely can't read something with a critical eye because you agree with it, that is all the worse for you.

[frankj 10]

Media bias concerns what is reported AND what is NOT reported. Eisely's post had to do with the latter. I don't follow the argument you are trying to make. What facts should have been checked? And are you saying the size of the audience determines whether the utterance should be scrutinized? Falwell -- big TV audience -- outrage across the land. Clark -- small audience -- who cares? Is that your take? In my opinion Falwell is in it for the money and Clark is in it for the notoriety, but this thread is about the presence or absence of media bias.

 

We expect it on the editorial pages. We should eschew it on the hard news pages. An arts and leisure page, where this piece appeared is entitled to express an opinion, and in this case they expressed one about an imbalance in the reporting of the two events. You are not distinguishing between the news items in the paper and the editorial/opinion items. The news items in the WSJ do indeed give the reader the information needed to make up his mind. The editorials and opinions are intended to lead readers to a conclusion. All newspapers do this. You talk about lazy journalism: here is an example. Ramsay Clark blurts out that Jesus was like a terrorist and hardly a word is said. But when the WSJ reports that hardly a word was said, this is cause for you to call them lazy? Your logic escapes me.

[evmori 11]

Since there are people here who don't like the WSJ editorials & other newspaper editorials, I would lke to know in what publication are their good editorials - in your opinion?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver 116]

Ed, I can't answer that question beyond this....a good editorial page will present op-ed pieces from the various viewpoints shared by the public. A paper that only carries liberal or conservative editorials or opinion pieces is doing a dis-service to their community. They need to carry a broad range of views for their readers to be totally informed. Keep in mind that the last presidential election was virtually 50/50 in votes and Congress is virtually 50/50 in membership as well. That speaks volumes about who is in the majority in the US.....no one! We are pretty evenly split politically. It is silly for either side to claim that they speak for the majority.

[firstpusk 10]

"Media bias concerns what is reported AND what is NOT reported. Eisely's post had to do with the latter."

 

The article exemplified the latter. Kind of the pot calling the polished silver tea service black. The article asserts that the two situations are comparable yet does not give the context for the remarks, so how is the reader to know. Clark appeared to be addressing Falwell's remarks. Likely answering a question.

 

"I don't follow the argument you are trying to make. What facts should have been checked? And are you saying the size of the audience determines whether the utterance should be scrutinized? Falwell -- big TV audience -- outrage across the land. Clark -- small audience -- who cares? Is that your take?"

 

The Journal is making a charge of bias. They are responsible to support such an accusation. Instead all we have is an out of context quote and some information about web hits. If Clark's audience is small enough, it doesn't get covered. You tell me, exactly why did Clark say what he did? I can make an educated guess, but the Journal did not do their job. Instead they took a cheap shot and you sucked it in with a straw - PROOF, PROOF OF LIBERAL BIAS!

 

"In my opinion Falwell is in it for the money and Clark is in it for the notoriety, but this thread is about the presence or absence of media bias."

 

That is exactly why I remarked about the humor of eisely's posts. The Journal piece is textbook propaganda presented as reporting. You and eisely accept the report at face value because it conforms to your personal bias.

 

[acco40 95]

News reporting has gone by the wayside. It has been taken over by both liberal and conservative (note the absence of the term right-wing) "talking heads."

 

It used to be that the news was something the networks and local stations put up with and used to add "respectability" to themselves. Now, they are simply vehicles for entertainment like any other show. Worse, now the news (on your side) media are making themselves part of the news (investigative reporting on "nudity on the golf course" which just so happens around the May sweeps period) and other such nonsense.

[eisely 13]

I have never read any article in a magazine or newspaper, or seen any report in any other medium, on a subject that I felt I knew really well that did not contain at least one error. That includes The Wall Street Journal. The fact that I rely on the journal for much of my news reflects the fact that the paper reports on things that interest me. The fact that I read their editorials, columns and op ed pieces, most of which I agree with, proves nothing. I would point out that one of their regular columnists, Al Hunt, is very liberal. When I read an opinion piece I also look for information to support the opinion. Most of what appears in the journal as editorial material contains information as well as opinion. I used to read far more material from the far left, but gave up on it because I could predict what the writer was going to say. We should all plead guilty to reading stuff we agree with. So?

[SR540Beaver 116]

I think we are comparing apples and oranges here! Let's not confuse op-ed and "news". They both are contained in newpapers and TV news, and both can be informative, but they are two different animals. Even newspapers and TV news are two different animals. TV news is competing not just with other news channels, but with all sports and entertainment channels as well.

 

O'Reilly came along with his confrontational style and people started watching because they enjoy a good fight. That upped the ante and Crossfire (which used to be a pretty good show) had to do something to get audience ratings back. They "updated" the show with alternating hosts, do the show in front of a live audience and have what appears to be contrived arguments at times. They dumbed the show down to compete.

 

But op-ed in newspapers and O'Reilly, Crosfire, Hardball, Hannity and colmes, etc. are all basically political op-ed shows....they are news related, but not really news reporting.

 

I think many people are beginning to think that news has a particular bias based on these opinion shows, rather than actual news reporting like a Walter Cronkite or Chet Huntley did.

[packsaddle 753]

Is there some mystery as to why we are all in agreement that bias exists (most of us anyway)? Hypothetically, if a truly neutral account of events is reported, extreme viewpoints all would consider this truly neutral position to be biased against them. Everyone would perceive bias (just not in the same directions), we're so vain.

The media make most of their income from advertising. They sell their one greatest resource...the listeners (readers, watchers)...to the advertisers (it's the advertisers that try to sell us those widgets). For good ratings, the media must attract US. If there is a bias, then it usually is biased along our tendencies as an audience. Let's face it, rightwing talk shows ARE entertaining (by the way, don't forget Hamblin and Boortz). I enjoy listening to criminals read newspapers (mispronounced and misread as it sometimes is). And I enjoy the outrageously inaccurate statements as much as their good points (there are a few, come on, admit it)

Korea, I would submit that a truly conservative viewpoint is close to neutral. If WSJ has a bias, it is probably pro-business, not pro-life. Adam Smith's idea of 'laizze-faire', applied to capitalism, is close to neutral, would you not agree?

[SR540Beaver 116]

"I would submit that a truly conservative viewpoint is close to neutral."

 

Pack, have you read any Ann Coulter lately??? She is a conservative sweetheart and her views are anything but neutral. She would have you believe that EVERY liberal or Democrat HATES the US and wants to destroy it. Wouldn't that be kind of like burning your own house down? Where are you going to sleep? There are a heck of a lot of liberals out there who wore a uniform and defended this country in war. Some gave their lives for this country. How can that be hating your country and wanting to destroy it?

 

I think that both the conservative and liberal biased media is fairly neutral. It is the hardcore that nitpicks over perceived slights in the stories. Journalism 101 atill expects you to answer who, what, where, when and how. Most reputable media outlets still expect that standard from their reporters. Without it, people won't buy their papers or watch their show and they'll go out of business. Op-ed on TV is a little different, but usually follows the standard. They don't want to have to come on the next night and retract their statements when they are proven wrong. Some of the talking heads will just try to spin it in their favor instead of admit being wrong.

[packsaddle 753]

kwc57, Hold back the cavalry for just a bit. I agree with your sentiments. I said 'true' conservative. I see precious few of those out there in the land of 'shock', Coulter included. I suppose 'neutral' is always a reach but I couldn't think of a better term.

To me a true conservative wants to conserve personal freedom and civil liberties. Most so-called conservatives seem to want to selectively take those away (from those other people). A true conservative should CONSERVE, whether rights or money or energy or natural resources. The so-called conservative groups we know have corrupted the term.

[Rooster7 11]

Here's the problem with the liberal defense of media bias as it is being claimed by some of you in this thread.

 

1) Guys like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, don't claim to be anchormen or even news journalists. They are political editorialists and/or talk show hosts. I offer my apologies to those folks who already made this point.

 

2) Guys like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, don't hide their bias. They announce to their audience that they support the conservative viewpoint.

 

3) Guys like Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw, do claim to be news journalists.

 

4) Guys like Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw, claim they have no bias - despite evidence to the contrary.

 

In short, YES - there are some conservatives in the media, particularly in radio. However, unlike the liberals, they don't try to blur the line between fact and opinion, by masquerading their beliefs as news. And while talk radio has risen in popularity (probably because until recently, you couldn't find a rational conservative personality on TV), it's influence pales to that of television.

 

And since we're talking about the media (which includes more than just the news), how about the movie industry? Or, TV sitcoms and dramas? If you don't see any influence towards the left, you're too far gone to even reach.

 

To All:

 

Here's a challenge - for every show that you name that has a conservative slant, I bet that I can name at least four that have a liberal slant. Frankly, I'll be impressed if you can name four sitcoms and dramas that have a conservative slant.

 

The issue concerning media bias is not about whether or not liberals or conservatives are represented. It's about hidden agendas that the media powers are imposing on the public at large. What messages are being sent subtly and not so subtly? What is the ultimate goal of those folks in control of major media outlets? To some of us, it seems pretty obvious.

 

Was M.A.S.H. simply a comedy about a medical unit in the Korean War? Or, were its producers trying to tell us that the leaders of the military and those who like to serve are hypocrites and fools.

 

Was "All in the Family" about one misguided but "loveable" character, who kept making a fool of himself? Or, were its producers trying to indict white conservatives as stupid and hateful?

 

What messages do you get from shows like Boston Public, West Wing, The Practice, Law & Order, and a hundred others like them? I suggest that you watch them one day with a critical eye. If you like those shows and don't believe that they are trying to influence you in any way - then you're watching them with your eyes closed (and your hands over your ears).(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[SR540Beaver 116]

Pack,

 

Funny, your definition of a true conservative just described a lot of "left-wing liberals". You know, the folks who don't want to give the government the right to read your e-mails, peek thru the bedroom door or log all of your credit card receipts. Hey, there are even a few Republicans who feel the same way.